Rectification and HUF taxation limits under the 1922 Income-tax Act: individual income provisions cannot be applied to HUF assessments.

Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applies only to the total income of an individual and cannot be used to include a minor son's income in an assessment made in the status of a Hindu undivided family, which is a distinct taxable entity. Rectification under section 35 is a statutory power to correct a mistake apparent from the record; where its conditions are met, it is not a bare discretion that can be refused without proper examination and notice. The availability of revision does not bar writ relief where rectification is wrongly withheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether income assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family could be brought within section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 so as to include the minor sons' income. (ii) Whether the power of rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was discretionary so as to justify refusal of relief and defeat the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether income assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family could be brought within section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 so as to include the minor sons' income.

Analysis: Section 16(3)(a)(ii) applies to the computation of the total income of an individual. The income in question was assessed for the relevant period in the hands of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family. A Hindu undivided family is a distinct taxable entity, and the provision directed to an individual could not be invoked against income assessed in that different status.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the minor sons' income under section 16(3)(a)(ii) in an assessment made in the status of a Hindu undivided family was not permissible and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the power of rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was discretionary so as to justify refusal of relief and defeat the writ petition.

Analysis: Rectification under section 35 is a statutory power meant to correct a mistake apparent from the record. When the conditions for its exercise exist and the assessee seeks correction, the authority cannot treat the power as purely discretionary and refuse to act by changing the status adopted in the assessment without first examining the matter after due notice. The availability of revision did not bar the High Court from entertaining the writ petition.

Conclusion: The power under section 35 was not a bare discretion and the refusal to rectify on that basis was erroneous; the writ petition was maintainable and the assessee was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The assessments for the relevant years had to be rectified by removing the income of the minor sons that had been wrongly included, and the assessee obtained full relief in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record, when invoked by a person entitled to relief and when the jurisdictional conditions exist, is coupled with a duty to act and cannot be withheld on the ground of mere discretion; a provision applicable to the income of an individual cannot be applied to an assessment made in the status of a Hindu undivided family.

---